I think Big Hollywood nails it:
Does anybody else find it supremely ironic that Ben Stein made a documentary about academia’s intolerance toward those who question evolutionary theory — and then a university effectively rescinded an invitation to speak? Seems to me that nothing in Ben Stein’s Expelled is more compelling evidence of the truth of his thesis than that.
I don’t have a horse in this race myself but I think this is a gift to Ben Stein it validates his thesis and strengthens his whole hand. Even if you disagree much better to let him talk. I suspect he would have been a great speaker.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 
I recall Palin making an interesting point about the teaching of intelligent design. She said that the teaching evolution would thereby be improved since students would come to a deeper understanding by looking at it from more than one perspective and by seeing what it is not students would better understand what it is.
I think a lot of the difficulty comes from the nature of the liberal mind set. They tend to see everything in terms of power and how it can be used. They go from seeing that they control most most academic teaching slots to automatically decreeing what will be taught and how it will be taught. There is no room in their mindset to look at what is best for the students. And since they always think in terms of power, the idea that the truth will prevail in the long run is foreign to them. In fact. they tend to be so emotionally rather than rationally based that the concept of ‘in the long run’ is difficult for them. An emotion based person lives almost totally in the present moment.
Well put. I’m planning a longer post on the subject in general with my own beliefs detailed but I also have several other posts on more interesting topics ahead of it.
It is rightly said that if one is not willing to have your religious belief challenged then it must not be worth much. I think that is true for science as well. In fact science progresses by the process of idea, observation, experiment, deduction, reassessment and repeat.
This process has three results:
All these things have one core component; the pursuit of truth. As truth is the reason to be Christian the pursuit of scientific truth must be embraced.
This is as opposed to “scientific” ponzi schemes such as global warming. Where the amount of money involved skews the actual pursuit of reality.
Bottom lines good science:
Without both you stop becoming a scientist and become an advocate in a white coat trolling for cash.
You know I guess this reply has turned into the post I was thinking of. I’ll promote it
[…] 2: My take on Science vs religion By datechguy I was answering a comment in the Ben Stein thread it hit me that the answer was the post I’ve been meaning to write on the subject so […]
Looking at it from the view of religious belief adds an interesting twist. It makes me think of the practice of prayer. I suspect everyone develops their own inner style of prayer, making changes as it is noted that some things work better than others. The unchanging goal is to communicate with God but the twists and turns come from me finding a more and more real and honest me from which to communicate more effectively.
In the same way the scientific method helps us to more and more closely approach the truth. The truth remains the same but our methods of apprehending become more and more acute and the amount and depth we understand increases (just as our assurance of the perfect love and goodness of God increase as we conquer more and more by means of prayer).
I’ve always been of the opinion that scripture and tradition have the singular purpose of assuring salvation. The mistake often made is to look at it for other purposes.